Twelve Aphorisms for Our Age—Variations on a Theme of Edmund Burke

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2016-02-02 04:11

Twelve Aphorisms for Our Age—Variations on a Theme of Edmund Burke

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

This adage is usually attributed to Edmund Burke, though its origin is disputed. Whoever said it, it is especially apposite in our politically correct age when one is not permitted even to call anything "evil," much less take action against it. Muslims practise and propagate their barbarous superstition, academia and the media their pomo-Marxism, moronnials their aggressive airheadedness, etc., with an impunity lethal to civilisation, because too many of those who know better say nothing. With current events in mind, I have produced twelve variations of my own on Burke's theme.

1) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to refuse to call it that.

2) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to deny its reality.

3) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to be fooled that it's good.

4) The only thing more evil than evil itself is the rush to accommodate it.

5) The greatest error of those who act in good faith is to assume that everybody else does.

6) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men never to get angry.

7) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men always to be too busy.

8 ) If good men lack the conviction of their goodness and the courage of that conviction, they will succumb to evil.

9) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to spend all their time on Faecesbook.

10) When a solitary voice is denounced by frenzied mobs, it is in all likelihood the voice of reason.

11) When frenzied mobs denounce a solitary voice, they are doing it in all likelihood because their "friends" on Faecesbook are doing it.

12) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to eschew solidarity with other good men.


Yes

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Lindsay he presumes to lecture Mr Donald Trump, and it may interest you to note his father pulled the same stunt some decades ago against Goldwater; daddy was also a loser.

It's now clear ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... that Marco and Romney are a tag team operating on behalf of the Establishment. Marco should know better. Romney, on the other hand, is outright evil. The coward who refused to confront Obamullah in 2012 about Benghazi, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, et al., and who egregiously lost to aforementioned Obafilth, now presumes to lecture Trump??!!

After

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Mr Trump's huge win on Super Tuesday that Carson fellow, the negro, is dropping out; leaves a narrow field which is a good thing.

I think a lot of the Republican leadership are misreading things - and proving Trump's point about them being out of touch; Yanks love a winner and so I expect the man in the street will rally behind Trump in even greater numbers.

I also expect members of Congress lower down the food chain will do the dirty on Ryan and McConnell and back Trump too; hard to see some junior congressman ignoring Trump winning a landslide in his district (if you know what I mean?).

Oh yes

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Kumbaya Kasich must drop out. They played some speech of his today with a bunch of moronnials behind him. One of them appeared to fall asleep, then got out his sowphone and started thuxting. The dangers of having Airhead America as your cheerleaders!

I'm anticipating...

Olivia's picture

with glee the departure of Kasich too. He's as awful as Jeb, and twice as sanctimonious, but possibly more qualified. Can't stand him! Carson too, needs to go.

Trump continues to be the phenomenon I expected him to be. He's gold! Shows you the attitude of Americans who want someone with that spirit of a winner (secular to boot) rather than the crawly-bum-lick weakness they've had for the last seven years. I thought Cruz looked rather defeated in his speech tonight and talk about having his smugness slapped by the vote of evangelicals whom he thought would all come in for him! Rubio is just getting better and better, and I think will make one hell of a Secretary of State, should that be put on the table at a later date.

Glad ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to see the departure of the insufferably sanctimonious Jeb, and that Trump got into the 40s tonight. Glad also that Trump has said he'll prosecute Hillary, disgusting treasonous liar that she is. I still fear he'll buckle when push comes to shove because, ultimately, he's an amoralist.

No it wasn't

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The principle here is: a free country has the right, but not the obligation, to take out a dictatorship. Saddam's was a dictatorship that had WMD but removed them—and behaved as though it had them still. To say that taking him out was wrong is Saddamy. And usually is said by people who were supportive of the action when it was first undertaken but quailed when the going got tough. Cowardly armchair quarterbacking is the signature tune of ... well, the KASSless.

Now, one may argue that Bush should have taken out the Iranian or Saudi regimes instead, or as well as, and I might well agree. It may well be that the whole Bush dynasty has unseemly connections with the Saudis (and Hitler), as is often alleged and that that's Donald's trump card. If so, let him display it. I can't stand Jeb's smug, appeasing born-to-ruleness—but Donald needs to be much smarter in going after him. If he has the dirt, let him put it out there, now.

[Edit] Though, investigating this more, I fear that Donald is exposing himself to the threat of assassination. The Bushes and the Clintons are clearly a joint Mafia all of their own. Yikes!

Iraq was wrong in principle

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

The latter would have been fine right now were it not for Obama's treachery.

I disagree with this. Iraq was screwed up before Obama ever took office. It was ill conceived.

This is the problem I have with Objectivist analysis of politics. It looks at America through rose colored glasses. I have two different influences on my thinking of foreign policy, and they are divergent. There is Auster's influence. Auster was the best analyst of Islam and its mortal threat to the non-Muslim world. His Separationism is still the best foundation for West / Islam relations. Auster started out ambivalent about Iraq and then militantly opposed to it as he realized it was NeoCon Wilsonianism. He brilliantly argued against any ME engagements which aimed at "amelioration" of the Muslim world because it is not within the West's power to do so.

The other influence is the Austrian / Rockwellian anti-war view. I don't agree with their anarchism or the reflexive anti-Americanism. But they do understand the relationship between domestic economics and foreign militarism. Also, they understand actual US history not the rose colored crap that Conservatives and Objectivists believe in. America has been involved in covert operations to meddle with foreign governments for well over 100 years. This has amplified after WW2. There is a legitimate case to be made for "blowback" especially in the context of mass Muslim immigration (Auster wouldn't like the term "blowback" though).

The Founding Father's conception of a noble and virtuous trade republic has been abandoned and the US has become a type of hegemon or empire. And we suck at Pax Americana; largely due to the altruist ethics and egalitarian universalism. But we are a de facto empire and the US government has in large part become the managerial arm of the monied and political elite. There is much to criticize America for. And that doesn't mean "Saddamite".

There is No Objectivist writer / speaker that has any grasp of foreign policy. Actually, I don't think there is ANYONE who has a full grip on foreign policy. Auster came the closest from all the pundits that I have read. But he's gone and sadly there is no one that equals his brilliance. Somewhere between Auster's anti-Islam approach and the Austrian's anti-American Empire approach lies wisdom. But I haven't figured it out yet and I haven't seen anyone who has.

He

Mr_Lineberry's picture

most certainly is Doug the Second.

He managed to stop drinking despite being an alcoholic; he saved the World from Al Gore; he rose to the occasion after 9/11; he cut taxes for the right sort of people.

He didn't talk or write strongly worded letters, like everyone else, but started shoving missiles up the arses of terrorists and Dictators. No mercy, no pissing about!

I loved his Texan-ness - his cowboy boots, his strut, his ranch.

President Bush is also the first former President not to cash in on the job; he left the White House, moved to Dallas, dropped out of sight, and got on with making money from business interests.

No speeches and lectures for high fees, no paid interviews, and he donated the royalties from his book to charity.

?

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

George W is the greatest US President in history

Puzzled

Oh

Mr_Lineberry's picture

yes, don't worry about the wall or keeping sociopathic savages out of America. Written in stone! Laughing out loud

I wonder (a personal opinion) if Trump wasn't setting the scene for debates against Hillary in October; getting on record as against the Iraq war she voted for. Just a thought.

George W is the greatest US President in history, in my opinion, and despite being his greatest supporter I am not in the least upset about Trump's behaviour the last couple of days. It's just politics - not real life Sticking out tongue

I get ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... that Trump was making a pre-emptive strike ahead of W's campaigning. But what he said was rubbish. He could have gone after Dubya for his big spending, bail-outs and the like. It raises for me the question of how much of what Trump says does he mean. I desperately want for him to mean that he won't let in Muslims, will build a wall, etc., and consider it heroic of him to have said these things in the first place. But had he just done a Winston Peters and worked out where the votes might be? He worries far too much about polls for my liking. That said, I'm still viscerally pleased when I see him with double the figures of his nearest rival.

Lindsay

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Mr Donald Trump is just trying to snuff out Jeb.

The Bushes have a long, long history of playing it dirty in South Carolina and the Donald wasn't going to end up like Bob Dole or John McCain so kinda got in first. It has worked as Jeb is polling in single figures and his campaign has about 5 days left to run.

To me it seems just 'one of those things' about hard fought elections; a bit of street theatre to entertain - like Muldoon taking a Springbok Tour around marginal seats, or Winston denouncing the 'baubles of office' - and not worth taking too seriously.

It does ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... concern me that Rubio is the Establishment's pick after Bush. But I am profoundly concerned by the following:

1) Trump is lying when he claims to have opposed the Iraq War from the get-go. That is irrefutable. So if he's lying about that, what else is he lying about? My heart sinks to say it, but it's possible he has no intention of banning Muslims and illegals. That's the problem with liars—even if they're telling the truth you can't bank on it.

2) He is wrong to blame W for 9/11 and the outcome of the Iraq War. The latter would have been fine right now were it not for Obama's treachery. That created the vacuum that spawned ISIS. Saddamites have not been vindicated. Rubio was brilliant to jump in and say Clinton could have taken bin Laden out but didn't.

3) Rubio is the only one pointing out that Obama's evil is intentional, not the result of ineptitude or stupidity.

4) If not Trump or Rubio, then who? As already discussed here, Cruz is slime made vertical.

5) Oh, and Rubio is by far the strongest on the vileness of H.R. Clinton, and the treacherous Benghazi lies that "disqualify her from office." Rubio would wipe the floor of any debate stage he shared with Hillary. Trump would never finish a sentence.

I'm deeply troubled by it all. The best candidate is never going to be perfect. But I won't be influenced on whom to root for by whom I might thereby inadvertently be aligning myself with.

Linz

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Rubio is the candidate most supported by the Republican Establishment. Doesn't that give you pause?

Also, being against the Iraq War sets Trump apart and shows that he is not part of the Neo-Con war machine which is not "pro-America". America's ME war strategy has been suicidally stupid based on the updated Trotskyite globalism of the Neo Conservatives. We are in a more dangerous world than before 9/11 precisely because of the combination of Muslim immigration and the wars we have fought in the ME. Your anti-Saddam ("Saddamite") stuff is now outdated. And it was wrong. We were all wrong and ignorant back in 2003. Taking out Saddam was a stupid move. The US has in essence created ISIS and destabilized the whole region. This is ME destabilizing strategy is an Israeli strategy that IMO is not in America or Europe's interest.

The Paleo-Conservatives have about the best foreign policy posture that you can get right now (with Auster being the best thinker on this subject that we have had). Objectivists are basically in line with the NeoCon world view; one which they supposedly hate.

Trump is the sanest man in politics on American foreign policy. He does not want to start a war with Russia and he does not want to spread democracy in the ME. He does not want to transform the Muslim world into a liberal one. And he is not spewing NeoCon nonsense like the "American Century" that Rubio is.

That Objectivists can get in line behind someone like Rubio makes me shake my head. I'll say it again, Objectivism has produced NOTHING of value in the realm of political analysis. There is no equivalent to Larry Auster or Paul Gottfried in Objectivism. The movement is NeoCon light.

Saturday night's debate...

Olivia's picture

was one hell of a debate! I only wish that this level of substance and aggression had been in the 2012 primaries.
Marco was very good, and his foreign policy arguments were the sanest.

Marco good again tonight

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Hard on the heels of being the only candidate willing to say Obamarx knows exactly what he's doing, Rubio now points out that Saddam behaved as though he had WMD, even if he'd secretly moved them to Syria. Trump pretends he opposed the Iraq intervention before it began when he said nothing about it till after it had happened. I'm going off him. I'm liking Marco more and more. He seems, coming back to the primary thread, to be the one who most conforms to the imperative of being prepared to call evil "evil."

Rubio

Neil Parille's picture

I don't know much about him. But assume he gets the nomination. All these Objectivists such as Brook, etc. say that Hispanics won't vote Republican because the Republicans are "anti-immigration." Well Rubio is Hispanic*, supports immigration and amnesty. So how well will he do? When Reagan signed the 86 amnesty the Republicans did worse with Hispanics the next election cycle.

Neil
__

*Rubio appears to be of Spanish descent. Most Mexicans (the largest Hispanic group) are either all American Indian or mixed Spanish/Indian. Mexicans have long resented Cubans because the US government has given them preferential treatment in immigration.

I

Mr_Lineberry's picture

think if Rubio had made that speech on the floor of the Senate every single day for the last 5 years - instead of waiting until 3 days before the New Hampshire primary - it would be a different story....(if you know what I mean?)

The average man in the street isn't quite as stupid as most politicians think.

Rubio deserves the mockery he's getting

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

To the best of my knowledge, not one prominent conservative or libertarian has spoken out on Marco's behalf. Shame!

The philosophic climate of modern politics sucks. But once you get past that, you realize that Rubio is no different than Obama. He is a minority candidate who is probably gay (or was when younger) that only appeals to the GOPe because he is a non-white who is an economic moderate (don't rock the boat), pro-Israel (ie NeoCon warmonger) and pro-immigration (wont stop demographic war waged by the elites). In detail, he is no different than Obama. Therefore any criticism of Obama coming from him is worthless.

Also, its clear that he is a terrible debater who can not make extemporaneous points and relies on memorized content. I know this because that is how I learned to be a PUA; memorizing scripted lines that always felt forced. But I learned spontaneity after a while and could be "natural". Rubio has not reached that level. So he is being mocked for having a bad verbal presence.

As far as attacking Obama, given the philosophic climate, the Republicans have been attacking him pretty good. Trump keeps saying that the country is being run by "stupid" people. Now they may be stupid but they are definitely evil. But saying that would go too far outside the Overton Window even for Trump (although I'd love to see it).

But the fundamental point regarding Rubio that no Objectivist can understand because you are all open immigration is this: Rubio is Hispanic, and you can not rely on an Hispanic man to stop Hispanic immigration and preserve America's white racial stock. That is why Trump is so popular, because many white people are starting to realize that the Left and the mainstream right ultimately intend to turn America into Brazil. And that may result in a racial nightmare like South Africa (or worse). Trump may be the last hope for America's existence as a largely white nation and sadly I think that's it already too late.

ALL politics are racial right now. This is what Objectivists and libertarians don't understand. Analyzing modern politics according to "individual rights" or "liberty" type analysis is not going to explain much. You can value those things but they are not driving Western politics. Racial and gender egalitarianism is what is driving things now (they are the form that modern altruism is taking). And that includes the backlash those things are provoking.

And you outpost folks down there at the bottom of the world need to understand that when the white power base of North America and Western Europe falls, who will protect you from the emerging Yellow empire that you have right next door? All that nice scenery you have in those island countries of yours, yeah the Chinese can appreciate its value too...

The Marco Rubio moment....

Olivia's picture

was exactly as you state. He was making an important point about Obama, the right point, and stuck to his guns, thus appearing to be repetative. It was a molehill which was declared to be a mountain. Pure media spin. That moment should have been the impetus for an immediate debate about whether or not Obama has been acting with strong anti-ideological convictions.

It wasn't Rubio who shot himself in the foot, it was the damn press who were not listening.

But

Mr_Lineberry's picture

what I think it comes down to is this - no one wants to admit Obama is the 'Manchurian Candidate' who pulled off the greatest con trick in history, and they swallowed it whole.

You may recall Lindsay I predicted all this in 2008, prior to his election, and nobody listened.

It is far easier to believe "he is just incompetent" than... "within 7 years of 9/11 the American people were so dumb they elected an America-hating Muslim Marxist financed by Al Queda to the Presidency simply because he is a Negro, with the sole orders to double the national debt and see if he could bankrupt America"

It takes a big man to admit he is wrong.

Oh

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Lindsay! Sticking out tongue

Short of some patriot doing an Oswald and giving us President Biden - what can be done about it? Obama is on the way out and President Trump will sort things out in less than a year.

Donald Trump is that bumblebee who keeps on flying despite all the scientific evidence....

Again, not the point

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Barack Obama knows exactly what he's doing. Marco is the only one among the candidates prepared to say it ... and when he does, there's deafening silence or outright hostility from those who ought to be cheering him. Or non sequiturs such as "Rubio isn't even a real American." Pathetic, Eli!!!!

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to behave like scatterbrained women.

Liked Trump today on Ted "the pussy" Cruz.

But

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Rubio isn't even a real American, and you would have to be really up yourself to give up a Senate seat on the automatic assumption you would win the Presidency.

Case in point

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The brouhaha over Marco Rubio's most recent debate performance is an illustration of 2), 3), 4) and 12). Marco exhorted everyone to get over the notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. "He knows exactly what he's doing." The exact same point I have made tirelessly right here since 2008. Marco got shredded for repeating the point several times in one answer, as though his repetitiveness were a bigger issue than the truth he repeated. Other candidates, Trump alas included, wanted to let Obamarx off the hook by pretending the the awful results of his presidency are the result of his incompetence, that he simply "doesn't know what he's doing." He does. He's evil.

To the best of my knowledge, not one prominent conservative or libertarian has spoken out on Marco's behalf. Shame!

I was reassured to see Marco sticking to his guns today notwithstanding the cowardly appeasement of evil being displayed by Edmund Burke's (mythical?) "good men."

I don't know, Linz ...

Ed Thompson's picture

... I haven't even been online in years now and I can't remember if I had a photo here like over at "you know where."

Eye

Ed

p.s., I sure missed you head-banging cauter-waulers, though.

Hello Ed!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Long time no see indeed. And I *still* can't see you! Wot happened to your photo? Smiling

Great list, Lindsay ...

Ed Thompson's picture

... long time no see!

Ed

Who

Mr_Lineberry's picture

is/was the Auckland University economist? do you mean that tosspot Rodney Hide?

When the Libz disbanded I was numb for two weeks; couldn't believe it.

What got me is how recreant it was when there was so much fertile ground at the 2014 election - tax cuts, property rights for Farmers, that chilling law legalising searches without warrants, offshore drilling, mining on the West Coast - Libz could have had a field day!

It is also interesting to note (although presumably the ex-Libz didn't) that on the ACT website it not only says they are opposed to personal liberties, but ACT is the only political party who has such a policy! Shocked

In the end I voted for Brett Hudson MP because he was the only person not to sign that disgusting anti-Semitic petition going around Ohariu. He's a good man, too.

"You are Number Six"

mvardoulis's picture

Lindsay its disheartening to hear the LibertariaNZ disbanded out of the attempt to distance themselves from you. While you may not be a "pure" Libertarian (neither are the many of the people who have brought attention to libertarian thought here in the United Police States). Anger is a valid response to Nanny and Daddy Statism. Reminds me of Number Six from The Prisoner pounding on the desk as he resigns in anger. Although eventually refined, Number Six was clearly angry in each one of the 17 episodes where he challenged his captors with impunity. I celebrate anger.

And here ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is evil that none dare call evil:

Eli

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No. 6 is the most applicable here. Smiling

And I should say, for the historical record, the disbandment of Libertarianz was not my idea. I was presented with it as a fait accompli on the day it happened, by people who were in thrall to a tepid Auckland University economist whose No. 1 concern was/is his million dollar taxpayer-funded superannuation scheme. These people had resolved to make Libertarianz the "not Lindsay Perigo party." It never was that, but their campaign to sideline their first and most successful leader didn't seem to work out very well. They lost members at a rate of knots, then used that fact as a pathetic excuse to deregister the party. My contempt for them is eternal. They were in breach of most of my aphorisms here, especially the last one.

Really

Mr_Lineberry's picture

good stuff Lindsay.

Number 4 is most appropriate for New Zealand in general.

Number 5 is so true, alas.

Number 8 sounds so like a certain political party which disbanded itself a couple of years back - lest the Marxists got upset.

Number 10 sounds like me on solopassion circa. 2008 Eye

As I said to you that night many moons ago - most folk would sell their soul and principles for a few measly dollars to pay the gas bill; or beer in the fridge; or sport on television. So long as nothing appears to be directly upsetting this status quo, 'reason' is ignored.

Teddy Roosevelt once contemptuously denounced "those timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat" - and there is a huge middle class out there (who have a beer fridge, sport on TV, and have paid the gas bill) who will willingly nod their head with pride, missing the contempt aspect entirely, at having experienced neither.

So much safer. So much less hassle.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.